lordpunkmonk wrote:MPT I mean seriously what do you think the whole FSM thing is?do you just think we are a bunch of guys screwing around on the internet because we have nothing else to do? I mean we are protesting ID being taught in classrooms

I mean your a cool guy and all but I thought you would know why we were protesting something when you are part of the protest

I never claimed too seriously to be a member of FSM'ism. I simply wish to get a better picture of the thing we're all supposed to be protesting.

I'm really surprised at how lop sided things can get. In one post, I'm blasted because I don't care to read books by certain authors. Here I'm attacked because I want to study something no one else agrees with.

Seems kinds ironic to me.

Actually, were just surprised that you've been here so long, yet seem to not have grasped the basic premises behind ID.

PirateGuy wrote:Also Earthrise, did you notice that old Ben stooped to bringing Godwin's Law to fruition within the first two minutes. That cracked me up.

I thought it was hilarious, the comparison between Nazi Germany and 'Big Science.'

Yeah, I can reasonably predict this movie will be chock full of the typical ID fallacies. I can bet that each and every claim will have been addressed by scientists, or be an appeal to emotion and/or incredulity.

There will likely not be a single piece of substantial science in this.

[...] the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.-Darwin

I get the impression that MPT may be speaking about the concept of intelligent design as opposed to the ID movement to to teach intelligent design in public schools as an alternative to evolution.

After all, no matter what we, as individuals, think about the concept of intelligent design, most of us agree that we don't or can't know for sure that it isn't the case. We do, however, agree that it is not science and should not be taught as such, especially by people who are using it to promote a specific religion.

EarthRise wrote:There will likely not be a single piece of substantial science in this.

Doesn't matter. It will appeal to the baser instincts and serve to rally the masses.

I knew that the whole issue with the smithsonian editor that published that paper by Meyers, would be a major part of the film. Does anyone know any details on the paper's content or on the firing. Seems like I heard that the paper just touched on potential implications of ID theory.

This story has become a flagship for IDers claiming the persecution card, and frankly, the way it's told it does come out looking bad for our side.

Edit: I just found this great quote on their website:

PZ Myers wrote:"It's (EXPELLED) going to appeal strongly to the religious, the paranoid, the conspiracy theorists, and the ignorant â€“â€“ which means they're going to draw in about 90% of the American market."-Atheist blogger and fabulist PZ Myers, on a film he has not yet seen.

PZ is the scientist who runs the Pharyngula blog. Which is awesome if you've never read it.

IF ID truly is an attempt to force a theology into the realm of science, then I do not support it being taught in a science class.

I ASSUME that it is indeed a theology but to be honest I truly don't know. I don't know enough about what it honestly teaches, only what I have heard from biased sources. I want to watch this movie because I'm hoping that the film will better educate me to the nature of ID and because I like Mr Stine.

I like me evolution. I understand the basic principles behind it. For me it contains an elegance in creation that I believe belies God's truly beneficial nature.

In that way I AM an ID'er as I believe God to be behind the creation of this world.

I've never claimed not to be an ID'er just one who understands the place of science and theology in a class room.

In that way I AM an ID'er as I believe God to be behind the creation of this world.

I've never claimed not to be an ID'er just one who understands the place of science and theology in a class room.

No, you are a theistic evolutionist. There is a world of difference between the two.

I've read some reviews of the film and I don't think it will teach you much about ID theory. The word is that the film just focuses on conspiracy theories about bias in science, without actually offering any ideas that ID poses.

In that way I AM an ID'er as I believe God to be behind the creation of this world.

I've never claimed not to be an ID'er just one who understands the place of science and theology in a class room.

No, you are a theistic evolutionist. There is a world of difference between the two.

I've read some reviews of the film and I don't think it will teach you much about ID theory. The word is that the film just focuses on conspiracy theories about bias in science, without actually offering any ideas that ID poses.

Read the blog posts from their website. They are hillariously absurd.

Either way I'm still gona watch it.

Also I had no idea a thing like Theistic evolutionist existed. Learn something new every day.

In that way I AM an ID'er as I believe God to be behind the creation of this world.

I've never claimed not to be an ID'er just one who understands the place of science and theology in a class room.

No, you are a theistic evolutionist. There is a world of difference between the two.

I've read some reviews of the film and I don't think it will teach you much about ID theory. The word is that the film just focuses on conspiracy theories about bias in science, without actually offering any ideas that ID poses.

Read the blog posts from their website. They are hillariously absurd.

Either way I'm still gona watch it.

Also I had no idea a thing like Theistic evolutionist existed. Learn something new every day.

ID is very easy to understand:
"An "Intelligent Designer" created everything the way it is now."

So, it basically negates evolution.

You can't believe in both.

Theistic evolutionist means: God created ancient life, and set in motion the evolution of it.

In this case you can believe in both.

The believers in the ID BS, are people who believes in the Bible by the letter. That God created Adam and Eve and the talking snake and the garden of Eden and so forth.

But if that is all true, the world must be around 6000 years old (if you count the number of generations since Adam), and no evolution took place, since god created man as we are.

So, this is ID in a nutshell...

But you are right, you can't say something is junk before knowing it (even though we're pretty sure it will be all junk)

What you described sounds alot like creationism, which IS theological and from what I understand is different from Intelligent Design.

Also...how is it that people come up with 6000 years of age for the Earth? I thought it had something to do with blood lines or what not found in the Bible, but I never could figure out the math.

The phrase "intelligent design" actually means the thought that a power created, or set in motion, the world.

Unfortunately, it has become associated with a movement of, mostly, YECs, trying to get it taught in science class.

It should be called "bliblical creationism", because, that's what it is. Intelligent design itself doesn't negate evolution, but the form that is most often presented is that of the YECs, which is thatGod created the earth exactly as described in the Bible, and that is what it has come to mean.

The thin line between genius and insanity is less of a border than a union.

"Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish."--Pope John Paul II

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.-Albert Einstein

The point with ID is that god intervened along the way, not just in the beginning.

Your brand of theistic evolutionism could fall under the ID philosophy which is thousands of years old, but not the current ID movement.

There is a big difference between young earth creationism (6,000 yrs) and ID, yet most YEC's seem to support ID because it suits their needs.

So not all IDers are creationists or biblical literalists, but many creationists do support ID.

But for both groups the most important thing is to absolutely deny evolution.

The 6,000 yrs thing is from Bishop James Ussher. He back calculated bible geneologies and estimated that the earth was created at around 4,300 BC. For some reason YEC's still take this as being golden.

That is the best possible resource if you want to get up on things. It should be required viewing for every member here.

Thanks for posting that URL. It really does explain the issues. It should be required for everyone. I will add that Neil Shubin (who is the scientist who found the fossil fish mentioned in that video) has written a really excellent book on some of the physiological and biochemical evidence for evolution. It's called Your Inner Fish. I highly recommend it.

MPT, notice that these "religious" people were perfectly willing to lie under oath to further their cause. What ever happened to Thou shalt not bear false witness? What the hell kind of "faith" is that? What about the man who committed vandalism? What about all those "good Christians" who were sending death threats? As far as I know, nobody on the defendants side got death threats. Funny, isn't it, that all the "atheists" that they claim have no morals managed to go to trial without lying, cheating, or stealing anything.

Don't let those liars confuse you. There is plenty of room for a god in science. I personally don't feel the need for any god but our Noodly Master, but if you believe that when God said "Let there be Light", the Big Bang happened, I can't and won't argue with you about it. It could be true. If it is true, don't you think that ignoring reality is an insult to the God that created it all?

That is the best possible resource if you want to get up on things. It should be required viewing for every member here.

MPT, notice that these "religious" people were perfectly willing to lie under oath to further their cause. What ever happened to Thou shalt not bear false witness? What the hell kind of "faith" is that? What about the man who committed vandalism? What about all those "good Christians" who were sending death threats? As far as I know, nobody on the defendants side got death threats. Funny, isn't it, that all the "atheists" that they claim have no morals managed to go to trial without lying, cheating, or stealing anything.

Dude don't attack his religion
It is not truly fair to say all christians are liars now is it, I mean their religion is actualy a good thing it teaches morals and values so please don't rag on others religions.